broken game engine

[tajj7]

16 hours ago, pheelf said:

I tend to find that these sort of lop sided statistics are produced when players use the higher end of mentalities and have a lot of aggressive roles and duties in their formations. It gets further compounded when used against opponents on much lower mentalities.

Having loads of possession and a bunch of meaningless shots may be good for stroking one's ego but the reality is that without the goals to back it up you're just deluding yourself. Personally, I couldn't care less whether I have more possession and/or shots than the opposition, if I do then great (when I win that is usually the case) but if I don't then so what. All I care about is winning the game and doing whatever is necessary to improve my chances of that happening. If you can't consistently beat teams with inferior players then there is something wrong with the way you are managing the team. Whether it's a tactical issue or a man management one there is something off.

There appears to be a real reluctance among some to actually do any managing which I find quite baffling considering this is a management game.

This is a typical 'It's your tactics' response that insults the intelligence of people giving feedback.

I watch my games, I watch my strikers miss multiple good chances, I watch my wide players shoot from stupid angles when there are multiple options in the middle for them to pass to, runners created by my tactics.  And then I watch the AI who has done nothing all game ping one in from 30 yards with a player who IRL has scored 1 goal in whole career and has a long shots of 9.

And then watch my strikers miss good chances again. 

You can also get a good appreciation of the match by looking at the stats in detail, my teams have multiple shots inside the box, on target that the game doesn't even deem half chances that IRL managers and players would say people should be scoring from. 

It's not a tactics problem, there are fundamental flaws with this years ME, there is no getting away from it. 

And really it's not about being successful, I won the Bundesliga unbeaten in my second season with Leverkusen and won the champions league, I am plenty successful, I just don't like what I am watching because it ranges from annoying to absurd and ultimately frustrating as an experience.

Most of the rest of the game is great and love many of the new things they have added over the last few versions, but what you do in FM ultimately is manage your team in matches and watch those matches, and that aspect is just not very good and not up to scratch compared to previous versions. 

[yolixeya]

17 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

It's not a tactics problem, there are fundamental flaws with this years ME, there is no getting away from it. 

I don't know how those issues you are describing are typical just for FM20 and not for other versions. Strikers shooting from tight angles has always been a part of FM. I played FM07 few years ago and I think you would go mad if you played it now. Strikers shoot from dead angle when they have a open teammate that could score a simple tap in if he would make a simple pass. It was really bad back then and modern versions are much better in that regard but you can still see them shooting when they could pass, not just in FM20 but FM19, FM18 etc.

You can also have massive number of shots and opposition to have  1-2 but still lose. Players are complaining about that since forever. Again how is that typical for FM20?

Long shots were rarer in recent versions but they were scored more often in some older versions and some players are actually glad because of that. I didn't look through statistics and compered it to real life to see if its on point but it I always felt that long shot golas were too rare on FM18 and FM19.

30 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

This is a typical 'It's your tactics' response that insults the intelligence of people giving feedback.

He wasn't speaking specifically about you but in general and I agree with him. It's a certain type of scenario that creates such results and statistics. One team is with agressive mentality attacking and pinning them into box, other team is defending and waiting for the chance. If you would back down a little bit there is no chance they would score that goal. And it's not like the AI manages to do that every single time that it is a issue. And it's not like you can't do that to AI. I won a few games in the same manner agains AI when I was a underdog.

[Ronaldinho Gaúcho 10]

45 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

And then I watch the AI who has done nothing all game ping one in from 30 yards with a player who IRL has scored 1 goal in whole career and has a long shots of 9.

 

 made me laugh but it’s the sad truth 

[GreenTriangle]

49 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

(...) and has a long shots of 9.

Attributes taken individually do not mean much. What really matters are the combinations of attributes. And in certain circumstances two players with the same level of this attribute can score many goals ... or none. Hidden attributes are very important. The team's morale is very important. The player's morale, too. Level of complacency. Team cohesion. The way the manager is perceived by the players. And so on. Fm is not like a picture : "this is my player, and he is good". He can play extremely poor in some when certain combinations of factors do not allow him to play at the expected level. Or he can play exceptionally even if he does not possess exceptional abilities

 

[roykela]

19 hours ago, tajj7 said:

You only have to actually watch games to see how bad this years ME really is.

I could write a 10000 word essay on all the issues. 

Some things may indeed be how the graphical engine represents what is actually happening, but that is IMO no real excuse, because all we as end users see is what is happening on the pitch and if it looks dumb, stupid and completely unrealistic then people will rightly be unhappy.

If the graphical engine can't properly represent what is happening, then what is happening shouldn't simply happen. 

There is a very clear problem with set pieces, there is a very clear problem with 1v1s being scored, and the AI scoring from an absurdly low number of quality chances (you generally have to hammer the AI in good chances to win games, and even then they will beat you with you creating 6+ good chances and them basically none), usually through players scoring where their attributes are clearly irrelevant, (people with 8 long shots smashing in 30 yarders against world class keepers), there is very clearly an issue with every half decent quick dribbler able to play like Messi, there is a clear issue with players like tackling each other than the ball just phases back to the tackler, terrible problems with defender positioning and reactions (like defenders who run away from attackers, or who move forward when a long ball is in the air so they are out of position).

And silly things like centre-backs taking throw ins, or two players closing down the goalkeeper for no reason, or the classic throw in, midfielder just dwells on the ball for no reason for ages just so the opposition can rob it and counter attack from it (usually with some player running 60-70 yards that no one can catch, even if your players are quicker).

Oh and the absurdly negative AI that then is able to play tiki-taka keep ball in their own half all game without making any mistakes even against a good press. 

Lots of silly looking stuff, unrealistic stuff and downright annoying stuff.

The stuff the OP highlights just gets old. 

Yes occasionally teams will have lots of chances, play, shots possession and draw/lose. The key word is occasionally, it might happen 1 or 2 times in a season at best IRL, if not less for the very best teams.  In game in happens multiple times a season and you are often having 15-25 shot on target a game, multiple clear cut chances, hitting the woodwork 2-3 times etc.  No team stands up to that sort of pressure and wins, but in game that happens multiple times a season. 

I don't mind losing if I get outplayed, I don't mind struggling to break a low block, but those things have to be realistic, not low blocks where their centre-backs are having 90% pass completion rates with 50+ passes against a press, or low blocks where you have 15 shots on target, 3 clear cut chances, 3 half chances, barely any long shots and their average keeper gets a 7.5 out of nowhere, meanwhile their crap centre-mid wanders forward and smashes one in from 30 yards with his 10 long shots, or from the 3 corners they get all game their guy with 11 heading scores from a corner, whilst I have like 12 corners and don't score, because reasons. 

Generally when good teams fail to score, they haven't played very well which means they don't create good chances, don't move the ball around well,

But in game you can absolutely play a team off the park, but lose 1-0 or 2-1, to like 3 shots on target, because your world class strikers fluff 5 1v1s and their journeyman striker scores the only chance they have all game and then their left back scores a 30 yard volley on his wrong foot for his first goal in two years. 

The ME this year is just bad, there are multiple issues with it, I wish it wasn't the case but its by far the worst ME for years IMO and it is littered with problems and has been from day one. 

I find this post very interesting because it's different to what i'm experiencing in my game, in general.

- Very clear problem with set pieces.
I know this has been mentioned many times before but what problems? I don't have any problems with set pieces here. Some are good some are bad. Some are scored some are missed.

- Very clear problem with 1v1s being scored.
My players often scores 1v1s. But they also miss fairly often. I don't experience anything outside the norm of real life football there. I was playing an irl match yesterday. Out of 5 1v1s 1 was scored. The rest was saved by the goalie. Now, i know it's only one match but is that unusual? 1v1s are more difficult for the attacker than one might think.

- The AI scoring from an absurdly low number of quality chances.
That is certainly most likely due to tactics. Pinning the opposition down. Bombarding them with low quality chances. Open in the back, so when they finally get their few chances they're in a much better position to convert.

- People with long shots 8 smashing in 30 yarders against world class keepers.
Nothing wrong with that. Long shots of 8 doesn't mean they can't. Same with long shots 1. It just means, the lower the number the less likely. World class players won't take everything when playing against worse players.

- Every half decent quick dribbler able to play like Messi.
Compared to the level they're playing at, yes they would appear to be able to do that. And it should be expected as well. Doesn't mean they're as good as Messi.

- Players tackling eachother then the ball just phases back to the tackler.
I have not observed that happening once in my games. I watch all my matches in comprehensive highlight and i'm now at the end of the year 2047, having managed from lower league and am now in Serie A in Italy.

- Terrible problems with defender positioning
That could be something tactical, with instructions and/or the players themselves. I don't have a problem with defender positioning.

- Centrebacks taking throw-ins.
Does not happen here unless i've instructed them to, and i don't. Hasn't happened at all here.

- Two player closing down the goalkeeper for no reason.
This one i agree with. Not only the goalkeeper but closing down outfield players as well. It happens too often.

- Classic throw-in
Most often i have no problems with them but it certainly seems like this needs to be worked on. The throw-in taker makes some baffling decisions sometimes. And by sometimes i mean more often than it should.

- Midfielder just dwells on the ball
I have seen this a few times but have always taken it as a lack of animations of the player unable to control the ball properly, for one reason or another. I haven't seen it with players running 60-70 yards though.

- The absurdly negative AI that then is able to play tiki-taka keep ball in their own half all game without making any mistakes even against a good press.
The AI teams sure do make mistakes in those situations in my game. My teams have scored quite a few goals due to the teams making mistakes when trying to play the ball around in the back.

[pheelf]

22 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

This is a typical 'It's your tactics' response that insults the intelligence of people giving feedback.

I watch my games, I watch my strikers miss multiple good chances, I watch my wide players shoot from stupid angles when there are multiple options in the middle for them to pass to, runners created by my tactics.  And then I watch the AI who has done nothing all game ping one in from 30 yards with a player who IRL has scored 1 goal in whole career and has a long shots of 9.

And then watch my strikers miss good chances again. 

You can also get a good appreciation of the match by looking at the stats in detail, my teams have multiple shots inside the box, on target that the game doesn't even deem half chances that IRL managers and players would say people should be scoring from. 

It's not a tactics problem, there are fundamental flaws with this years ME, there is no getting away from it. 

And really it's not about being successful, I won the Bundesliga unbeaten in my second season with Leverkusen and won the champions league, I am plenty successful, I just don't like what I am watching because it ranges from annoying to absurd and ultimately frustrating as an experience.

Most of the rest of the game is great and love many of the new things they have added over the last few versions, but what you do in FM ultimately is manage your team in matches and watch those matches, and that aspect is just not very good and not up to scratch compared to previous versions. 

You are so adamant that all the things you're observing are all down to the ME that you refuse to even entertain the possibility that there could be other causes (tactical, man management).

Given that is your view there isn't really much more to say.

Good luck 

[Tyburn]

Dodgy tactics COMBINED with team make up AND management result in wonky ME. WHEN all the stars are aligned you get to see the ME responding much much better. But it’s only when. For the most, vast majority of my journeyman save (16 seasons) I have seen all the gripes about the ME. Regularly. However when you get it right the vast majority of “issues” do and can go away. At least for a while.

And it’s like a black art this year. Often there is no discernible reason why it all starts to click. (Perhaps like in reality?) But I have seen both a good representation from the ME and also a very bad representation. The WAY the ME shows us something is wrong, somewhere in what we’re doing is at its best ugly. At its worst damn right infuriating. But it CAN be made to look half decent. The right tactic, the right personnel AND the right management WILL make the ME ‘look’ alright. At times. In spurts. 

[Lvpool]

First game of the day & no fk*n surprises. Literally every 1 in 3 games on this terrible ME is like this....how did they score? 30yd screamer this time. Why is it I need multiple quality chances every game to score (in this game at least 3 of the "half chances" were easy chances, so 6 clear cut (1-on-1s, sitters from 3yds out), convertible chances for 1 goal) yet the AI always manages to score 1 from a set peice or long shot?

ME needs to be thrown in the bin & restarted from scratch. It's poor

[alexonian]

3 hours ago, roykela said:

I find this post very interesting because it's different to what i'm experiencing in my game, in general.

- Very clear problem with set pieces.
I know this has been mentioned many times before but what problems? I don't have any problems with set pieces here. Some are good some are bad. Some are scored some are missed.
 

really, you think bastoni scoring 22 league goals for sassuolo all from corners(in one season) seems ok? Also todibo scoring 18 and many more examples

[roykela]

27 minutes ago, alexonian said:

really, you think bastoni scoring 22 league goals for sassuolo all from corners(in one season) seems ok? Also todibo scoring 18 and many more examples

I don't know who Bastoni, nor Todibo are. I don't know the set piece setups there either. So i wouldn't be able to say one way or another.

Nor are they in my game. As they have probably retired, seeing that i'm in December 2047.
I didn't say it was or wasn't a problem in general, only that i don't have any problems with set pieces here....in my game.

[Sunstrikuuu]

On 07/06/2020 at 13:04, Svenc said:

It doesn't as these are specific picks obviously months apart based on the date of the Matches. We do not know his averages.

That's like Pep logging on to Whoscored and Looking exclusively at the Matches where he struggled. You can do it too, it's actually pretty fun this season, in particular considering that this is coming from the likes of Pep Managing spaces on a pitch rather FM Joe Managing shot Counts on a spread sheet.

(The ME has Always had flaws, mind you).  
 

In fairness to the OP, when I looked at this in December, chance conversion rate was way down after simming a full season; the league leader in chance conversion% was at 13%.  From 2011-2019, the lowest average chance conversion percentage for all teams combined was 13.8%.  So the best EPL FM team in 2019-20 was worse than the lowest average season, and more than two points lower than the average rate across all seven real life seasons.  In those seven seasons, three teams had seasons below 10%; that is, of the 140 individual team-seasons played, 3 finished with chance conversion rates below 10%.  That's 2% of all played seasons.  In that one simulated season of FM, nine teams finished with conversion rates below 10%, or 45%.  A save from the most recent patch is fairly similar - Chelsea lead in conversion rate at 14%, six teams are below 10%, and the league average is 11%, more than two points lower than the worst real average and more than four points lower than the seven-season average.  These are all simmed seasons on full detail, without any intervention from the player.

 

[Svenc]

2 hours ago, Sunstrikuuu said:

From 2011-2019, the lowest average chance conversion percentage for all teams combined was 13.8%.  

Where is that from out of interest? The averages in football are usually pretty much around the ~10% mark accross all levels -- unsurprisingly this EPL term for instance it's roughly just that according to this -- with Liverpool leading the pack at 14.3% of their shots converted into goals -- and Norwich being the last with 7.2%. There is naturally random variance over the seasons -- however not as high as that.

(Reason of me asking is I suspect it's from Transfermarkt, and that has never made much sense to me, even if they would just count shots on target -- because if those where shots on target, the numbers would be too low. Always been wondering what that was all about. Even at a basic glance, they are suggesting that Liverpool have but like 7 shots per game average. I suspect that unlike anybody else they may be excluding blocks, but their stuff just doesn't add up.)

Edited June 23, 2020 by Svenc

[Sunstrikuuu]

34 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Where is that from out of interest? The averages in football are usually pretty much around the ~10% mark accross all levels -- unsurprisingly this EPL term for instance it's roughly just that according to this -- with Liverpool leading the pack at 14.3% of their shots converted into goals -- and Norwich being the last with 7.2%. There is naturally random variance over the seasons -- however not as high as that.

(Reason of me asking is I suspect it's from Transfermarkt, and that has never made much sense to me, even if they would just count shots on target -- because if those where shots on target, the numbers would be too low. Always been wondering what that was all about. Even at a basic glance, they are suggesting that Liverpool have but like 7 shots per game average. I suspect that unlike anybody else they may be excluding blocks, but their stuff just doesn't add up.)

It was a while ago that I found it, but I suspect you're right.  Their shot numbers are quite low, but they're very explicit that they're not counting just shots on target.

[Nahuelzn]

I think the issues with the ME could be summed up around two or three big axis.

 

First, most of the professional football matches looks like the ME in broad terms. But people only watch high elite football (Premier League, LaLiga, Champions League). That's not the norm. That's the exception. Most of the games are opened by set pieces, crosses or one touch shots from a pass from the sideline. So having a lot of similar goals (specially when almost everyone uses the same tactics) it's logic.

At core level, I think that the game do have an issue: time. In 45 minutes IRL you don't have the actual time to create a lot of clear chances in the first ten minutes. But in the game you can. 45 minutes in FM is A LOT of time. It's not the equivalent of 45 minutes of real football. So if the ME tries to emulate that, you'll have a lot of unrealistic scores with even more goals. One way to "fix this" is by making a goal more difficult (better gks, different ball physics, different calculations for accuracy, etc). 

Then we have to divide the ME by two, as a lot of users have done here: core calculations and graphic representation. Having a lot of goals depends on the calculations. How they look, depends on representation. I think the other issue is that the game don't have the graphic tools (in a broad sense again) to accurately represent some things, so it has to "fall back" to other situations to replace those. That's why for example a lot of goals looks the same, or some people complains that low skilled players make astonishing goals from out of the box. In reality, even a Sunday league player make a lot of goals like that, but the shot doesn't look as perfect as a Messi's stunner. The game can not accurately differentiate this in the game. So when it decides that a player will make a long distance goal, it has to choose between a limited (although increasing) numbers of options.

 

And finally, there's a subtle difference that people usually confounds: "What is real" vs "What I don't like". A lot of the times when someone says "this isn't realistic", what they mean is "this isn't the ideal representation of football that I have". I like to think that FM (or any football simulator) don't try to emulate the real thing. It's just not possible. It's a simulator with a football theme on it, that eventually has its own rules and laws and we just have to play with them. This doesn't means that there are no bugs or things that can be improved. In the end, the end goal of the ME should be giving us a nice experience, not an imitation of a real football match back to back. So if there're things that can be improved to make that experience better, it should be done!

 

One more though. A lot of people don't like to lose. Can't blame them, me neither. But I honestly don't understand how some people enjoy winning every game 5-0. For me, that's not challenging, and ultimately not fun. I know this is a matter of taste, but if every Manager wins every match easily... That would be an issue and should be addressed. And the AI is already easy enough to beat. I do understand that making the AI "cheat" to be challenging is bad game design. But I ultimately prefer that to a ME that makes a team with good (but not great) players beat Liverpool on a CL final. That happens a lot in FM and that's not realistic either, but almost no one complains about that because they won.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Nahuelzn

[HUNT3R]

16 hours ago, Lvpool said:

First game of the day & no fk*n surprises. Literally every 1 in 3 games on this terrible ME is like this...

Just btw, I posted this in another thread:

Quote

Thanks to OPTA stats and The Guardian, we have exact knowledge of how often a team wins when having more possession (57%) and more shots (71%). Even if you always dominate the shot count, over a 60 match season you should expect to fail to win circa 18 times. Obviously, you will win some matches very easily. The key to being good at FM is not those matches, but reducing this 30-40% figure to one that will ensure you win some trophies.

It's 7 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if real world stats are still similar. Looking at that, your 1 in 3 issue doesn't seem to be too far out of line. I do like the last sentence in the quote. We have to try and reduce the amount of these failed matches.

[JordanMilly]

@Cadoni - Please don't quote an entire post just to put "+1". That's what the upvote button is for on people's posts. 

[Etebaer]

In regard to Goals from Set Pieces: Werder Bremen has 21 Goals conceded from it and yeah, they very likely will relegate this Season.

In regard to Throw Ins: I have seen many situations where Players that are not listed for throw ins do them despite listed throw in Players available on the field - it seems something overrules your choices somtimes.

In regard to stupid unbelieveable Goals coneded: They are part of Football and happen every matchday in reality and so do they ingame but the perception is ofc biased as usually you do not watch the other games and aee only yourself conceding these (and your oponent ofc - i had one game where they conceded 3 Goals from bad short Goal Kicks in a single game).

At all there are many improvements in the ME lately but also the more you play you see patterns emerge that may hint that some situations can be hard to display in a visually easy to understand way but the late ME is absolute one you can play with and more often than not it is me/the manager who is at fault for not winning than a bizzare Goal coneded at times and circumstances.

I would want to see likely an improvement of the strategically decisionmaking of the AI-Teams who at times ruin themself doing stupid things - it really does to often not know what a good player is and is bad at managing fincances etc.

[Lvpool]

7 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

Just btw, I posted this in another thread:

It's 7 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if real world stats are still similar. Looking at that, your 1 in 3 issue doesn't seem to be too far out of line. I do like the last sentence in the quote. We have to try and reduce the amount of these failed matches.

My last 50 domestic league matches:

78 goals scored. 15 assited by set pieces (20% of total goals). 12 long shots/from outside area (15%). I can't tell how many long shots were assisted by set pieces, but let's assume, say, 50% were. That gives a total of 21 (27%).

26 goals conceded. 12 assisted by set pieces (46%). 6 long shots/from outside area (23%). I can't tell how many long shots were assisted by set pieces, but let's assume, say, 50% were. That gives a total of 15 (58%) <- this is dodgy af in my opinion & it's not fun to watch

Below are PL stats up until the restart. Not one of these teams have 46% of goals conceded from set pieces

Edited June 24, 2020 by Lvpool

[Stackalee]

Now I'm confused, are you saying there are too many set piece goals?

Because that info just makes it look like you concede too few from open play and the AI needs to be improved to be more creative in open play to level that ratio out.

[zyfon5]

2 hours ago, Lvpool said:

My last 50 domestic league matches:

78 goals scored. 15 assited by set pieces (20% of total goals). 12 long shots/from outside area (15%). I can't tell how many long shots were assisted by set pieces, but let's assume, say, 50% were. That gives a total of 21 (27%).

26 goals conceded. 12 assisted by set pieces (46%). 6 long shots/from outside area (23%). I can't tell how many long shots were assisted by set pieces, but let's assume, say, 50% were. That gives a total of 15 (58%) <- this is dodgy af in my opinion & it's not fun to watch

Below are PL stats up until the restart. Not one of these teams have 46% of goals conceded from set pieces

Arsenal is in the same situation as you. Sorry to be that guy but had to point it out.

[Lvpool]

1 hour ago, Stackalee said:

Now I'm confused, are you saying there are too many set piece goals?

Because that info just makes it look like you concede too few from open play and the AI needs to be improved to be more creative in open play to level that ratio out.

I am using set peices & long shots as a % of total goals conceded to argue the point that something dodgy is going on.

Now sure, there are 2 ways to read the stat. (i) could mean too many of them are flying in and I should have conceded less goals overall or (ii) could mean that I should have conceded more goals from open play (1-on-1s & general shot conversion another big problem). (i) or (ii) doesn't matter as even if it is (ii), that would mean I myself would score a helllll of a lot more from open play as some of the 1-on-1s & chances that are missed are criminal. Likely is a combination of both (i) or (ii). 

31 minutes ago, zyfon5 said:

Arsenal is in the same situation as you. Sorry to be that guy but had to point it out.

I am focusing on set peices conceded as a % of total goals conceded. So no, they are not. Arsenal are at 33% (12/36). I am 46%...not to mention long shots is another 23% which I doubt is the case for Arsenal

 

Overall, to me, the balance of the ME is clearly not right & this stat highlights it. I bet if you looked through a lot of users' saves the data will show a similar problem by & large. I made a thread called "set peices are terrible" & in there, some guy XaW posted his stats (image below): 36 goals conceded, 14 from set peices (39%) & 5 long shots (14%)....same cr*p; those %s are WAYY off what they should be.

The 39% is a bit closer to Arsenal's 33%...but let's be clear, Arsenal are the WORST case in the PL. The PL % range ranges from 5% to 33%...average is something like 20%. So 46% & 39% is way too high!!!

Edited June 24, 2020 by Lvpool

[Stackalee]

9 minutes ago, Lvpool said:

could mean that I should have conceded more goals from open play

No idea what quality of side you have or tactics etc but given that from the numbers you've posted you conceded half as many goals per game as the best defence in the EPL from open play I think this is a more than fair assumption.

[Lvpool]

10 minutes ago, Stackalee said:

No idea what quality of side you have or tactics etc but given that from the numbers you've posted you conceded half as many goals per game as the best defence in the EPL from open play I think this is a more than fair assumption.

As I said, it doesn't matter which way. If 1-on-1s & general shot conversion were better such that I conceded more from open play, then I myself would score way more. Either way you cut it, the ME is v. unbalanced at the moment.

Personally, I think it is a combination of both as set peices & long shots seem to me to fly in way too often. The whole mix of ME, incl. chance creation (too many) & shot conversion (horrific) in open play + long shots (too many) + set peices (too many) is way off which is why you get these lopsided stats

Edited June 24, 2020 by Lvpool

[Grifty]

5 hours ago, Lvpool said:

As I said, it doesn't matter which way. If 1-on-1s & general shot conversion were better such that I conceded more from open play, then I myself would score way more. Either way you cut it, the ME is v. unbalanced at the moment.

Personally, I think it is a combination of both as set peices & long shots seem to me to fly in way too often. The whole mix of ME, incl. chance creation (too many) & shot conversion (horrific) in open play + long shots (too many) + set peices (too many) is way off which is why you get these lopsided stats

Jesus mate, you hate the game so much, its crap, broken, blah blah blah. Play something else.

I hated Call of Duty Black Ops 3. Guess what? I didn't play it.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Grifty said:

Jesus mate, you hate the game so much, its crap, broken, blah blah blah. Play something else.

I hated Call of Duty Black Ops 3. Guess what? I didn't play it.

I think, it's passionated with the game as me.

Critism is targeting to make the game better, not worse. I hope to understand that.

[Guest]

On 19/06/2020 at 16:15, Neil Brock said:

There is no difference between what can happen for the player or the AI - if there's such a thing as 'superkeepers' (which for the record we've seen nothing in the code to suggest this) then the AI would encounter it just as often as the player.

JSON file - Physics

We can alternate those numbers to make the GK weak or strong.

It's public - everyone can alternate it.

Must be removed for FM21.

 

[Lvpool]

39 minutes ago, Grifty said:

Jesus mate, you hate the game so much, its crap, broken, blah blah blah. Play something else.

I hated Call of Duty Black Ops 3. Guess what? I didn't play it.

Happily as soon as SI give my back my £40 or w.e. I paid....until then I have the right to give criticism.

I've been playing this series for >10yrs & this is pretty much the first time I have felt the need to post on game issues so I think that tells you how blatant they are appearing to me.

8 minutes ago, Cadoni said:

I think, it's passionated with the game as me.

Critism is targeting to make the game better, not worse. I hope to understand that.

Exactly

[damicus]

I was curious about people complaining about conversion ratio of chances, so I looked it up here.

Currently Liverpool have the best conversion rate in the EPL at 27.8%. City are much lower at 18.8% and Norwich sit on a lowly 9.5%. ManU have the most shots on goal (317) with a conversion rate of 15%.

In La Liga the numbers (average) are even lower for conversion with most clubs registering well under 15%.

Personally I think the ME could be improved but it's obviously not as far off the reality as some people make out - from a statistical point of view anyway. In fact I'd argue that the problem is much less about teams having a lot of shots on goal and converting many, and much more about those teams which seem to convert based on a very small amount of shots on target.

Additionally, it seems absolutely bonkers that people are talking about having 25+ chances a game. If anything the ME should be reducing the number of shots highly aggressive teams are actually getting on target. If you're averaging 25 shots on target a game then that's something like 850+ shots on target a season. In the 18/19 season of La Liga, Barca had the highest number of shots on target and that came in at 458 with a 19.7% conversion. They were well ahead of the rest of the pack too.

tl;dr - if there's an ME problem it's not about your conversion ratio of goals, but more about the number of chances heavily attacking tactics are creating.

[Pasonen]

17 minutes ago, damicus said:

if there's an ME problem it's not about your conversion ratio of goals, but more about the number of chances heavily attacking tactics are creating.

And this is because.

1) defline drops deeper too easily. 

2) wide defenders are part of static defline and they give space to flanks too much. (The number 1 way to push defline deeper for free)

3) first touches and passes are too good compared to lack of movement and physicality of defending team. 

4) shots are too easy to make and not enough blocking movement. 3*

5) crosses are way, wayyyy too accurate and good quality.

Game is not far from being very good. Just better defline logic, Wide defender dynamic positioning,  better movement especially when defending (leads to better pass and cross interceptions via headers and tackles or runs) and like 3x more one touch passes.

 

[Federico]

56 minuti fa, damicus ha scritto:

tl;dr - if there's an ME problem it's not about your conversion ratio of goals, but more about the number of chances heavily attacking tactics are creating.

But this is exactly what the most of people is complaining about. Your team creates loads of chances just to score nothing. And mentality has very little to do with that.

And in the quote you contradict yourself to be honest. You say the conversion rate is fine, but the problem is the number of chances created. Isn't it contradictory?

[herne79]

20 hours ago, Lvpool said:

as set peices & long shots seem to me to fly in way too often.

ok, and to an extent I can agree, but what have you done about it?  I'm not saying the ME can't be improved (it can) however that doesn't necessarily mean we're unable to make changes to at least try to mitigate such issues.  For example, have you set up set piece routines?  And/or altered your training to allow for defensive set piece work?  How do you manage your players throughout a match?

You also posted above a stats screen showing where you'd been "FM'd".  Is that a regular occurrence?  If not and it's a bit of a one off then it happens, just like real life.  However if it happens too often that may indicate some serious underlying tactical issues, perhaps related to an overly aggressive system being employed.  In which case the Tactics forum may be your best bet.

Of course perhaps you have tried all of these (and more) without success in which case your frustrations are understandable, but you never know - someone may be able to make other suggestions which might help.  Worth a try if you're struggling to the point of frustration .

22 minutes ago, Federico said:

Your team creates loads of chances just to score nothing. And mentality has very little to do with that.

Mentality has got a hell of a lot to do with that.  For example an aggressive mentality combined with aggressive players, roles & duties against a packed defence may likely create shot after shot and long shot after long shot simply because your players just don't have options against a brick wall.  And then leave themselves open to a quick counter attack resulting in a goal or corner (and then goal) and you being FM'd.

Neil wrote about that on the previous page:

 

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, damicus said:

Currently Liverpool have the best conversion rate in the EPL at 27.8%. City are much lower at 18.8% and Norwich sit on a lowly 9.5%. ManU have the most shots on goal (317) with a conversion rate of 15%.

Agreed about there being too many shots (and one-sided Matches). But a shot conversion of 27.8% means that more than every fourth attempt total goes in. This is so wildly out of anything going on in Football that it could only be taken from Transfermarkt. I've Always wondered what it is they counted, because shots it isn't, and shots on target neither. Liverpool have a shot conversion of 14.3%, City 13.5, Norwich 7.3%. The EPL averages are just about 10%.

It is worth keeping in mind that all of these stats are the result of schooled personell managing. FM has also Always for better or worse allowed too much, bluntly put, "crap" you'd never see on a Football pitch, certainly not 24/7. We're talking totally beginner's mistakes in anything when it comes to even team sports basics. I mean, the entire download section so popular is FILLED with tactics that basically see no defenders outside the centre backs. 

Speaking of which:

On 23/06/2020 at 20:18, Sunstrikuuu said:

It was a while ago that I found it, but I suspect you're right.  Their shot numbers are quite low, but they're very explicit that they're not counting just shots on target.

 

Have you found a Definition of their "shots at Goal"? stat somewhere? At one Point I even considered Mailing them.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by Svenc

[Federico]

1 ora fa, herne79 ha scritto:

Mentality has got a hell of a lot to do with that.  For example an aggressive mentality combined with aggressive players, roles & duties against a packed defence may likely create shot after shot and long shot after long shot simply because your players just don't have options against a brick wall.  And then leave themselves open to a quick counter attack resulting in a goal or corner (and then goal) and you being FM'd.

I think instead roles and duties have a much heavier impact on how your team perform compared to mentalities. I have crazy stats by playing cautious or balanced (I always play balanced and my shots counter is absolutely ridicolous). So, according to my experience on FM20, mentality affects only slightly how your team performs. And another demonstration of this is going all out of attack against an ultra-defensive side. You produce just nothing (and with nothing I mean "no highlights") if the deployment and your individual instructions doesn't fit well for that particulary game against that specific team.

And after all, what does mentality do exactly? Are there under-the-hood instructions we can't set or is anything reproducible with the correct TIs/PIs setup?

For me, mentalities in real life are pretty much visceral. A team can be aggressive because that's the input given by the coach, but along a 90+x minutes game, the mentality waves. There are moments were team slow the tempo down, moments they feel they have to rush even pushed by the audience. Moments they lose confidence. It's not the coach that gives these instructions, it's how the human brain works and those who played football know what I'm talking about.

In FM you play Offensive or Counter all the way long. I'm not sure what kind of benefit to the game mentalities give. Anything can be set via TIs: if I play short, slow tempo, low pressing, tight marking, low LOD I think it's clear what my intentions are.

This is my point of view.

[herne79]

34 minutes ago, Federico said:

In FM you play Offensive or Counter all the way long. I'm not sure what kind of benefit to the game mentalities give. Anything can be set via TIs: if I play short, slow tempo, low pressing, tight marking, low LOD I think it's clear what my intentions are.

 

47 minutes ago, Federico said:

And after all, what does mentality do exactly? Are there under-the-hood instructions we can't set or is anything reproducible with the correct TIs/PIs setup?

Mentality also changes individual role/duty mentality, along with all these team level changes.  So for example a Wingback (support) is a different animal when using the Attacking mentality compared to the Defensive mentality.  This is where we get into "Aggressive" vs "Overly Aggressive".  Overly Aggressive could be where you set the Attacking Mentality along with a Complete Wingback (attack) and use a player with the Trait to get forward often.  There's nothing to say you shouldn't do that, but if you do you need to be aware of the increased defensive risk that will bring.

How such factors combine together is critically important, rather than looking at things in isolation from each other.

[Federico]

18 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

 

Mentality also changes individual role/duty mentality, along with all these team level changes.  So for example a Wingback (support) is a different animal when using the Attacking mentality compared to the Defensive mentality.  This is where we get into "Aggressive" vs "Overly Aggressive".  Overly Aggressive could be where you set the Attacking Mentality along with a Complete Wingback (attack) and use a player with the Trait to get forward often.  There's nothing to say you shouldn't do that, but if you do you need to be aware of the increased defensive risk that will bring.

How such factors combine together is critically important, rather than looking at things in isolation from each other.

This for me just increases the confusion and the lack of understanding by the user. I'm not sure how many users (me included of course) knows perfectly how mentalities affect both positively and negatively any roles and duties available in the game. And if there's something I shouldn't do it, I should be free to do it anyway but risks must be clear to me.

[MBarbaric]

8 minuti fa, Federico ha scritto:

This for me just increases the confusion and the lack of understanding by the user. I'm not sure how many users (me included of course) knows perfectly how mentalities affect both positively and negatively any roles and duties available in the game. And if there's something I shouldn't do it, I should be free to do it anyway but risks must be clear to me.

absolutely this.

mentality stems from all instructions given by the coach:

- high line, high press, quick off transition = aggressive mentality

- low line, low press, retain possession instead of immediate counter = passive mentality

 

mentality shouldn't even be an instruction. it should be a description of team's general behaviour that is deducted from overall instruction effect, not an instruction in itself. at least not in a way it is done atm where you actually have no idea of the consequences of any mentalities in conjuction with individual player instructions. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by MBarbaric

[Federico]

Exactly. It should work the opposite way, as a result of your instructions.

[steam just is]

Tempo comes into this too. IRL How many times will you hear pundits say at half time a team isn’t moving the ball fast enough. And then at full time the manager says I just told them to move the ball quicker. no manager will ever send their team out to move the ball at a pedestrian pace, for some reason teams will drop into a safer mentality naturally. So I agree, tempo and mentality aren’t set parameters but behaviours based on how the team is prepared and motivated.

i also think one touch instructions will be a good addition. That would move the ball faster and up the tempo.

[FMSD0]

On 19/06/2020 at 15:15, Neil Brock said:

Can assure you there's been a significant amount of work going on with our match engine team over the past few versions to improve a whole host of aspects across the game. Notable the AI has been vastly improved, numerous animations have been added and the graphical side is constantly being worked on to increase the capabilities of what appears (all whilst still trying to keep those on lower-spec machines from being cut off).

Based on this, I can give a personal assessment that largely contradicts the citation. Before you feel offended, I remind you that this is only an opinion I have formed based on the statistics and impressions I have personally collected.

For me, there is no measurable evidence to suggest that significant work has been done in efficient ways. The workload may have been extraordinary, but it seems like it was not very efficient. In my assessment, there was a noticeable deterioration in many important areas.

 

On 19/06/2020 at 15:15, Neil Brock said:

The player will always have an advantage over the AI because they have more freedom to think and experiment. We tend to find players use much more attacking and aggressive tactics as a whole, which can cause them to create more chances overall, but often leave themselves exposed at the back which means the AI get much easier chances on the counter attack. This can cause imbalanced match stats where a player has had lots of shots (not always from good positions) and not converted, where the AI has very few shots, but those they do have are from extremely good positions which are converted.

This is partly why our moderators use tactical reasoning as a starting point for issues raised on our forums. 

This circumstance merely shows how limited the AI is. A statistically compressed bunch of AI clubs, most of which play similarly and offer little variance, with the result that tactical instructions from the user have no influence on what happens on the pitch, reinforced by the parameters that force an extreme randomness. This is also an admission of the imperceptible progress you praised in your initial first lines.

 

On 19/06/2020 at 15:15, Neil Brock said:

The game does not 'decide' you are suddenly going to lose because it's programmed that way. You only win or lose depending on the hundreds of factors which go into every match which is then calculated in the match engine based on every single decision that happens.

I can understand why users feel powerless. There are simply too many invisible, random factors that make it impossible for the user to understand why something is not working; the degree of randomness is extremely high, while tactical guidelines have little effect due to the general uniformity of the AI. So it is logical that it is not even necessary to manipulate the game to make it more exciting. Conversely, this means that more power must be given to the users by programming the AI in such a way that it differs noticeably from AI-controlled club to AI-controlled club and that there should be way less compression of the available playing styles, strengths and characteristics because they make it impossible to counteract the current circumstances with well thought-out management and logical strategies, which are adapted to the available player material.

 

On 19/06/2020 at 15:15, Neil Brock said:

But all the above has to sit into the constraints of trying to produce an accurate representation of football. It's not an easy task and we've never claimed it is. But it's something we're extremely passionate about and work incredibly hard towards. Some people may feel the ME has become more restricted or predictable, but we disagree. The elements worked on under the hood are pretty extraordinary and whilst the payoff may not always be obvious to the casual observer, I can assure you the building blocks are in place to continue to make strides forward in making the game more realistic. 

I would also never say anything bad about my product; I want to sell it as well as possible, which would not work if I admitted that it has one or two flaws. It's wonderful that passion is involved; unfortunately I can't judge that and it doesn't matter anyway. Anyway, I'm curious to see how the code under the hood will do in the next few years. In any case, I notice that the euphoria within the SI team is almost uncontrollable. This must be a sign. But I am not able to estimate what kind of one.

 

On 19/06/2020 at 15:15, Neil Brock said:

To you personally you may find it more 'enjoyable' and everyone is entitled to an opinion. But this match engine is not 'broken' and it is (in our professional opinion) the most sophisticated we've ever produced. 

Right now I'm philosophising about how an opinion about a thing can be professional if it comes from the creator of that thing. Such an assessment is actually only valid if it comes from professional outside sources. Some things we create in life are so sophisticated that we cannot even understand them ourselves. But they are sophisticated. Because that is all that matters.

This will probably remain unanswered just like this one. It's okay, I'm extremely patient. At least other users will be able to read it with a certain degree of acceptance.

[herne79]

17 minutes ago, Federico said:

This for me just increases the confusion and the lack of understanding by the user. I'm not sure how many users (me included of course) knows perfectly how mentalities affect both positively and negatively any roles and duties available in the game. And if there's something I shouldn't do it, I should be free to do it anyway but risks must be clear to me.

 

22 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

where you actually have no idea of the consequences of any mentalities in conjuction with individual player instructions. 

It's stated in the player instruction screen for any role you set.

11 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

absolutely this.

mentality stems from all instructions given by the coach:

- high line, high press, quick off transition = aggressive mentality

- low line, low press, retain possession instead of immediate counter = passive mentality

 

mentality shouldn't even be an instruction. it should be a description of team's general behaviour that is deducted from overall instruction effect, not an instruction in itself. at least not in a way it is done atm where you actually have no idea of the consequences of any mentalities in conjuction with individual player instructions. 

 

8 minutes ago, Federico said:

Exactly. It should work the opposite way, as a result of your instructions.

Which is what Mentality does - choose a Mentality and it adjusts all of those TIs for you.  But yeh, it also sets individual role mentality as well.

Alternatively, and if you want your own full control via using your own TIs, PIs roles & duties, don't use Mentality.  Just set Balanced (or whatever Mentality you decide to use) and adjust your TIs, PIs and role/duties yourselves.  Mentality is just one aspect of the tactics screen which we are free to use or not as we see fit.  Just because we can use it doesn't mean we should.  So in this scenario, use more aggressive roles, duties, TIs, PIs and players to be more aggressive, the opposite to be more passive.  Which seems to be what you're asking for?

[MBarbaric]

23 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

 

Which is what Mentality does - choose a Mentality and it adjusts all of those TIs for you.  But yeh, it also sets individual role mentality as well.

Alternatively, and if you want your own full control via using your own TIs, PIs roles & duties, don't use Mentality.  Just set Balanced (or whatever Mentality you decide to use) and adjust your TIs, PIs and role/duties yourselves.  Mentality is just one aspect of the tactics screen which we are free to use or not as we see fit.  Just because we can use it doesn't mean we should.  So in this scenario, use more aggressive roles, duties, TIs, PIs and players to be more aggressive, the opposite to be more passive.  Which seems to be what you're asking for?

in fact, I only use balanced and then adjust TI/PI. The problem is, if you do use them, you have no clue what it is adjusted automatically  (or at least I don't know it after 20 years of playing the game which speaks a lot of the usefulness of the tool) and how that affects interaction between all instructions. The point is, it is needlesly introducing one more level of complexity/uncertainty into overall already complex instruction interaction. 

[Neil Brock]

19 minutes ago, gonefading said:

Based on this, I can give a personal assessment that largely contradicts the citation. Before you feel offended, I remind you that this is only an opinion I have formed based on the statistics and impressions I have personally collected.

For me, there is no measurable evidence to suggest that significant work has been done in efficient ways. The workload may have been extraordinary, but it seems like it was not very efficient. In my assessment, there was a noticeable deterioration in many important areas.

 

This circumstance merely shows how limited the AI is. A statistically compressed bunch of AI clubs, most of which play similarly and offer little variance, with the result that tactical instructions from the user have no influence on what happens on the pitch, reinforced by the parameters that force an extreme randomness. This is also an admission of the imperceptible progress you praised in your initial first lines.

 

I can understand why users feel powerless. There are simply too many invisible, random factors that make it impossible for the user to understand why something is not working; the degree of randomness is extremely high, while tactical guidelines have little effect due to the general uniformity of the AI. So it is logical that it is not even necessary to manipulate the game to make it more exciting. Conversely, this means that more power must be given to the users by programming the AI in such a way that it differs noticeably from AI-controlled club to AI-controlled club and that there should be way less compression of the available playing styles, strengths and characteristics because they make it impossible to counteract the current circumstances with well thought-out management and logical strategies, which are adapted to the available player material.

 

I would also never say anything bad about my product; I want to sell it as well as possible, which would not work if I admitted that it has one or two flaws. It's wonderful that passion is involved; unfortunately I can't judge that and it doesn't matter anyway. Anyway, I'm curious to see how the code under the hood will do in the next few years. In any case, I notice that the euphoria within the SI team is almost uncontrollable. This must be a sign. But I am not able to estimate what kind of one.

 

Right now I'm philosophising about how an opinion about a thing can be professional if it comes from the creator of that thing. Such an assessment is actually only valid if it comes from professional outside sources. Some things we create in life are so sophisticated that we cannot even understand them ourselves. But they are sophisticated. Because that is all that matters.

This will probably remain unanswered just like this one. It's okay, I'm extremely patient. At least other users will be able to read it with a certain degree of acceptance.

Pretty much everything above is your opinion which you're absolutely entitled to have - it may go against some of the points I've tried to make but please remember where we're able to, our eventual goal is to try and be more open and transparent with our community. Whilst we're not currently able to reveal publicly our current and future plans, where we can we'll try and give answers to questions we're in a position to answer. SI staff members are active not just here, but within the bugs forums, feature forums and other parts of community. 

The feedback and discussions held on these forums are definitely read internally and influence the future of the game. 

[Icy]

En 19/6/2020 a las 15:15, Neil Brock dijo:

Can assure you there's been a significant amount of work going on with our match engine team over the past few versions to improve a whole host of aspects across the game. Notable the AI has been vastly improved, numerous animations have been added and the graphical side is constantly being worked on to increase the capabilities of what appears (all whilst still trying to keep those on lower-spec machines from being cut off).

............

To you personally you may find it more 'enjoyable' and everyone is entitled to an opinion. But this match engine is not 'broken' and it is (in our professional opinion) the most sophisticated we've ever produced. 

I'm going to try to play devil's advocate here:

What if SI is right and the main issue is that we humans are not playing or understanding current FM properly?

We users claim that AI teams play too defensive, with too many touches in defense, and that they need just a couple of chances to score while we need 30+. What if the problem is that we users have the idealized idea that football is about aggressive attacking plays & highlights etc so we all set our teams to play in over attacking mentalities, high pressing etc and the ME can't cope with it for being unrealistic vs what the ME expects us to use?

What if we started to develop tactics based on low mentalities emulating the AI? would we get more "realistic" stats regarding shoots/goal and perceived domination?

I'm going to give it a new go again with that approach, just to prove myself wrong, even when I don't believe in that. When i tried to play low mentalities in FM20, the games ended again with low scores and what looked more non open goals (set pieces etc) but that might be again a problem of my perception and expectations.

But again, if that is true, and we don't know how to play and enjoy this game I think it's the time for SI to step up and teach us how to get the most of FM and to give us the right tools for that learning experience to become fun and not frustrating.

INTERFACE:

1) Change the in game help text and descriptions in the tactics screen, to something less abstract and flamboyant. Everything is so ambiguous, and I play the game both in Spanish (my mother language) and English. Use more visual aids like the short animations we already have.

2) Add more and proper default tactics, it can't be that much time consuming to do it on a good way. Current ones are not that good imho and create more confusion than help. Try to mirror real teams, even coaches as you work with some already. You can keep adding more as the season goes after the game release, like a tactical setup after a great CL game or stuff like that, it will keep fan base even more engaged.

AM FEEDBACK:

Either it's been untouched for many versions or the changes are not noticeable.

3) Give us proper feedback from the AM pre game instead of him just telling us that we should play more attacking because we are favourites or that we should add 2 more attacking roles because we chose attacking mentality, that seems to follow just a basic IF THEN rule set to give us advice.

4) Give us proper feedback from the AM in game. Sorry but it's embarrassing when the AM tells you that you should play a short passing game because you connected the last 3 short passes (I'm exaggerating), regardless of the macro of the game. I don't think anybody considers the AM advice, regardless the tactical knowledge attribute, trustable at all.

OFFICIAL WRITTEN GUIDES:

I know the philosophy is to let the user learn by himself instead of feeding him the solution, but maybe we have reached a point of complexity where more info feeding is needed regarding how the engine works or how does it calculates things, what each attribute and setting does by itself or together with others without giving out the formulas. Anyway users can decide themselves if to read that info and "spoil" themselves or not.

5) Offer us again an in depth proper guide like the old FM tricks and tips from Marc Vaughan that we used to receive every year. I know it takes time and effort (=money), but maybe it's worth it to pay somebody (or community volunteer) to do this and a good long term investment for SI as you will need to update it every year only with the yearly changes.

6) Give us videos and/or written examples of real life tactics applied to the tactical setup. Sorry again I don't trust most of the current tactical content available in Youtube, I would trust more official ones by SI.

COMMUNITY CONTENT:

7) Incentive again the best content producers that we had once in this forums writing gems like the tactics and theorems, that while complex and in depth, had also real life examples of real coaches and tactics and how to set them up in the game. See the tactics forum now, it's far from what it used to be and we have mainly the same threads about how to be the next Pep or Jurgen in terms of new threads, most of the good discussions are still in old threads. Now it's all about (with exceptions) the Twitch and youtube videos from content producers teaching how to exploit the ME playing high pressing high mentality like if we are were kids playing Fornite when I consider the FM player base or the strategy/manager games player base in general older and more educated, else we would only play FIFA (that I do as well btw, nothing wrong). I don't remember the details but there was an issue some years ago that split the community and that made a lot of quality FM sites to close down.

BRING BACK THE EMPLOYEES TO THE FORUMS (volunteers of course):

I know you did in the past an it was probably a bad experience for your lead guys and programmers to interact with the users. Also I'm the CEO of a tech company with 80+ programmers and I know in general they are not the best profile for interacting in public nor that they like it  but maybe you can setup a heavily moderated sub-forum where a single strike means you are gone from that subforum for some time or forever, whithout having to remove the user from the rest of public forums. Kind of like the Quickfire Q&A thread where I see more SI staff writting, but more organized as a subforum with threads instead of it all in a single thread where it's more messy to read.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Icy
Corrected a few typos

[Sunstrikuuu]

4 hours ago, Svenc said:

Agreed about there being too many shots (and one-sided Matches). But a shot conversion of 27.8% means that more than every fourth attempt total goes in. This is so wildly out of anything going on in Football that it could only be taken from Transfermarkt. I've Always wondered what it is they counted, because shots it isn't, and shots on target neither. Liverpool have a shot conversion of 14.3%, City 13.5, Norwich 7.3%. The EPL averages are just about 10%.

It is worth keeping in mind that all of these stats are the result of schooled personell managing. FM has also Always for better or worse allowed too much, bluntly put, "crap" you'd never see on a Football pitch, certainly not 24/7. We're talking totally beginner's mistakes in anything when it comes to even team sports basics. I mean, the entire download section so popular is FILLED with tactics that basically see no defenders outside the centre backs. 

Speaking of which:

Have you found a Definition of their "shots at Goal"? stat somewhere? At one Point I even considered Mailing them.  

No - one of these days I'm going to do some looking for blocked shot stats and see if that comes close to explaining the difference.  I also wonder if it's something to do with the way they calculate headers.  Whatever it is, it would be something that significantly depresses shots from official stats (admittedly, I've only looked at the PL here), but isn't just counting only shots on target.

[XaW]

2 hours ago, Icy said:

BRING BACK THE EMPLOYEES TO THE FORUMS (volunteers of course):

I know you did in the past an it was probably a bad experience for your lead guys and programmers to interact with the users. Also I'm the CEO of a tech company with 80+ programmers and I know in general they are not the best profile for interacting in public nor that they like it  but maybe you can setup a heavily moderated sub-forum where a single strike means you are gone from that subforum for some time or forever, whithout having to remove the user from the rest of public forums. Kind of like the Quickfire Q&A thread where I see more SI staff writting, but more organized as a subforum with threads instead of it all in a single thread where it's more messy to read.

I agree with a lot of what you said above this in regards to contextual advise from the AM and such, and I actually think it's much better in FM20 than the previous ones. With the introductions and a lot more advise (that is often ignored by users, I might add...).

In regards to what I've quoted, I think SI have started to come here more often and answering questions. And there are several who I have asked questions in different sub forums where I've gotten good answers to specific questions. So, it's very possible to get good answers and explanations from SI if one asks politely enough and in the right threads. So perhaps something like that could work. Seb have answered a lot of my questions regarding youth intakes and what affects what, and we who play youth challenges have gathered it in the opening post of the thread in the challenges subforum to avoid too many people asking the same things. Still,

However, there have been some really awful comments around and I've also seen users ask, get an answer from SI and then just said SI are wrong, or lying, or whatever other idiotic tinfoil hat spewing things. So I really understand why handling that is not part of the job of a programmer. So some users here have pretty much ruined it for themselves (and the rest of us) by acting this way repeatedly.

That said, I really hope SI continue to interact with the users and continue to being the developer that listens to their consumers the most, at least as far as I know.

[HUNT3R]

@Icy please add your thoughts to the feature requests section. If you can elaborate on some of those points, even better. 

[santy001]

For anyone who is interested in keeping tabs on contributions from various SI staff, there is the Developers Posts tab along the top of the forums. It does include off-topic threads as well, but there's a lot of posts about game-related stuff from there. 

[enigmatic]

On 25/06/2020 at 14:58, MBarbaric said:

absolutely this.

mentality stems from all instructions given by the coach:

- high line, high press, quick off transition = aggressive mentality

- low line, low press, retain possession instead of immediate counter = passive mentality

 

mentality shouldn't even be an instruction. it should be a description of team's general behaviour that is deducted from overall instruction effect, not an instruction in itself. at least not in a way it is done atm where you actually have no idea of the consequences of any mentalities in conjuction with individual player instructions. 

Mentality's not just about transitions though afaik, but about how many risks they take to try to score. Pretty common to have sides which are rushing desperately to score who also start everything by playing out from defence and pass mostly short, and sides which counter attack and even hit long direct passes, but will also happily play keep ball when risk free passing options exist. In theory you could decouple that from all the other settings 'mentality' also affects a bit like tempo and defensive line, but I think most people choosing it want global changes to their style of play.

Plus it's also a damn sight more intuitive and closer to the real world managers shouting simple instructions to switch to 'cautious' or 'very attacking' than change half a dozen other settings that amount to the same thing. And I say that as someone that does bother clicking all those buttons at least as often as I change mentality...

 

And we all know it's all slider variables under the hood anyway, 'mentality' just changes a lot at once  

[steam just is]

Buying creative new players isn’t exciting anymore. They all do the same thing anyway. The match is so repetitive. Even when you play vertical tiki with complete emphasis on central play the only thing your creative AM does is feed the ball to the overlapping full back. which is what your DM with no vision does as well.
The ME is opposed to give each player dozens of choices so why do they keep choosing the same one???

and SI getting defensive when the game is criticised isn’t a good look. Listen to your highly valued customers please, there is such a consistency in the complaints. It doesn’t devalue the amount of work you’ve done, just that we believe the match is going in the wrong direction. 

[Pasonen]

17 minutes ago, steam just is said:

The ME is opposed to give each player dozens of choices so why do they keep choosing the same one??

The more complex tactical features come in match engine the more it will eat away players individual freedom. Especially if strict real life statistics are pursued.